Elevatorgate

Elevatorgate is the unprecedented INTERNET WAR that erupted after Rebecca Watson (above) posted a video in which she discussed an ordeal she experienced in an elevator while attending the World Atheist Convention which took place in Dublin, Ireland, from June 3rd to June 5th, 2011.

During the months of July and August 2011, the atheist-skeptic blogosphere was ablaze with accusations, counter-accusations, verbal fights, moral declarations and insults as hundreds of bloggers and millions thousands of their readers tried to determine whose assessment of the events narrated by Watson best represented the facts at hand.

What also came under much discussion, and perhaps the crux of Elevatorgate, was Watson’s conduct after posting the initial video, particularly her treatment of a female student called Stef McGraw – and the manner in which dissenting opinions were dismissed as being products of misogyny and sexism.

Background:

Rebecca Watson is the founder of Skepchick, which she says is an organization dedicated to promoting skepticism and critical thinking among women around the world. Watson is also one of the co-presenters of the popular Skeptics’ Guide To The Universe podcast. She is fairly well-known in atheist-skeptic circles, and speaks at many events targeted at that community. Many of her talks tackle feminism – of which she is a vocal advocate.

She was invited to speak at this year’s World Atheist Convention in Dublin, Ireland, at the conference, she participated in a panel discussion on Communicating Atheism.

This is where the infamous incident took place.

According to an account she gives in the video below (posted on June 20, 2011), sometime during the period of the conference, she was having drinks with friends late into the night. At about 4am, she told her companions that she was tired and was going to bed. She entered the elevator and was joined by a man. While in the elevator, the man expressed interest in talking to Rebecca some more and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. She declined, but felt that she had been sexualised in the process. She also said it made her very uncomfortable to be approached this way, and suggested to ‘guys’ that – as a general rule – they should not to do this:

Not all were in agreement with Watson. Some female students, such as Rose St. Clair and Stef McGraw, did not agree that the actions of the man in the elevator constituted sexism or objectification, and expressed their reasons why. Rosie St. Clair put out a video explaining her position on the matter, a day after Watson posted hers (June 21st):

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson’s comment as so hypocritical.

If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, and stop demonizing men for being sexual beings?

By this time this controversy was still relatively unknown in the wider atheist-skeptic community.

Not very happy with the comments from these students, on June 26th, during her presentation at the CFI Student Leadership Conference titled “The Religious Right VS Every Woman On Earth”, Rebecca Watson decided to criticise Stef McGraw. She did this after briefly talking about sexism in the atheist movement at the start of her talk, and showing her audience samples of highly obscene hate mail she receives from people who disagree with her views, particularly on feminism. She cited McGraw’s views as being part of the problem:

She later expanded on her criticisms of McGraw in a blog post on Skepchick two days later (June 28th), prompted by criticism Watson herself was receiving from several students over Twitter. They were unhappy at the way McGraw was called out during the conference:

I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”

Shocked at how Watson used her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI student conference to criticise her in that manner, McGraw posted the following on her blog:

Then, a day later at the conference, Watson delivered a keynote speech on the religious right’s war against women. Before she got to her main content, though, she decided to address sexism in the secular movement, which she views as a rampant problem. I shared her disgust as she showed screenshots of people online calling her demeaning names, making comments about her appearance, and, worst of all, making rape comments.

Then, switching gears, Watson made a remark to the extent that there are people in our own community who would not stand up for her in these sorts of situations; my name, organization, and a few sentences from my blog post then flashed on the screen before my eyes. She went on to explain how I didn’t understand what objectification meant and was espousing anti-woman sentiment.

My first reaction was complete shock. I wasn’t surprised that she had seen my post, but I didn’t think she would choose to address it during her keynote, let alone place it in a category with people advocating for her to be raped. In fact, I was excited to possibly speak with her afterward in order to discuss the matter face-to-face. Instead, all I could do was just sit there and watch myself being berated for supposedly espousing anti-woman views and told that I wouldn’t stand up for women in sticky situations with men, as one hundred of my peers watched on. I found both of those accusations to be completely and utterly incorrect, as anyone who actually knows me could tell you I care deeply about fighting sexist thought. I started thinking, how can I respond? It didn’t feel right to have to endure a widely respected keynote speaker’s accusations that I was a living example of what was wrong with our movement while I sat there unable to defend my position.

There was no time at the conference where I, as a student attendee, could appropriately make any sort of public statement addressing what Watson claimed about my argument and me. She has said over Twitter that “An attendee has every right to counter during Q&A or by publicly blogging again later,” but there are issues with both of these approaches. First, the Q&A was not an option in my mind, as I wasn’t going to get up after her great talk and argue with her about something unrelated; I have more respect for a speaker than that.

[…] My issue is the forum in which Ms. Watson chose to present her views, as it was one in which there was an extreme imbalance of power. As I stated before, I was a student listening to her along with one hundred of my peers, while she was a keynote with a following and internationally successful blog. She had a podium, and I had nothing but word of mouth.

Someone says something you disagree with, so you actively try to discuss the issue with said person in a reasonable manner!! THE SECOND SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE!!!

Who the hell thinks Watsons behavior will ‘get through’ to McGraw better than a 30 minute discussion with McGraw on why Watson was hurt/disappointed/whatever by what McGraw said? On what planet would Watsons behavior have resulted in a net positive? Someone with Watsons speaking experience and internet experience should have done better.

Even granting the premise that what Watson did was technically 100% ‘not wrong’, what she did was bad form.

And worst of all… dammit worst of all– Watsons comments in her speech re: McGraw were apparently completely unnecessary. The audience appeared to view her McGraw comments as separate from her actual speech, and Watson herself said that it was leik, only two minutes, for reals. So why the fuck did she bring it up at all?Why??? Cause it was the bitchy thing to do! McGraw said something Watson thought was bitchy, so Watson did something bitchy right back.Goddammit. As a woman in skepticism, Rebecca Watson, thank you so much for that. I really appreciate it. I really do. Irony is one of my favorite sources of lulz, and nothing is more ironic than someone embodying the stereotype they purport to be combating, especially when I myself am trying to combat those stereotypes. Faaaaantastic.

It was around this time that this by now growing controversy came to the attention of prominent blogger PZ Myers of Pharyngula. In his first posting on the matter, he wrote, in Always Name Names (July 2nd):

There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?

It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior.

[…] But I don’t want to talk about that.I want to mention one thing that annoys me. Rebecca Watson talked about this experience at a CFI conference, and one thing she did was to directly address, by name, criticisms of her reaction to being importuned in an elevator late at night. She specifically discussed a criticism by one of the attendees, Stef McGraw, quoting her and saying where the argument was found, and a few people were angry at her for that, and demanded that she apologize to McGraw. Which is, frankly, bizarre.

While siding with Watson and taking the view that she was justified in ‘naming’ Stef McGraw as she addressed her criticisms, he did not acknowledge the fact that McGraw herself actually did not have a problem of being named. She stated very clearly in her blog entry (posted 3 days before Myers’ article):

There are a lot of people arguing on my behalf on Twitter and various blogs saying that the problem is that she used my name. On the contrary, I have no shame for what I said, and am proud to place my name with what I wrote. My issue is the forum in which Ms. Watson chose to present her views, as it was one in which there was an extreme imbalance of power.

It is possible that Myers was not aware of this posting. It was however later brought to his attention in the comments section of the article by one of the first commenters. What followed in the comments thread were discussions about whether or not Watson’s assessment of the elevator incident was justified, and whether or not her treatment of McGraw was fair. Views were divided, and things quickly heated up. Enter Richard Dawkins, who felt the whole scuffle was pointless, considering how much worse – in his view – women have it elsewhere in certain parts of the world:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

His attempt at a sarcastic dismissal of the commotion surrounding Watson’s ordeal was not taken well, and a vicious backlash against him ensued.

The “Big Bloggers” go after Dawkins

By “Big Bloggers” I am referring to bloggers who have risen to prominence within the atheist-skeptic community. Collectively they command a daily readership going into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and so have become opinion leaders of this growing movement. Some are more prominent than others, depending on their personality, style, quality and volume of writing. They more or less set the agenda for this community by bringing to people’s attention matters they feel are important.

Sometimes, a series of blog posts will be published on an issue in which the prominent bloggers will cross reference each other – and soon hundreds of lesser known bloggers pick it up, referencing the prominent ones, spawning an avalanche of commentary by thousands of their readers in a short span of time; or what, in internet slang, is called a “shitstorm”.

PZ Myers’ was the first of the Big Bloggers to comment on the matter. It was after his initial post, and Dawkins’ leaving comments on it, that what was initially a squabble between Watson and a few female students turned into a full blown internet “shitstorm”. One after the other, several prominent bloggers jumped in, in their castigation of Richard Dawkins.

Frankly, this is disappointing for a number of reasons. One, because it was so refreshing to read PZ’s post and knowing a guy out there "gets it." Two, because you’re kind of an idol of mine, and it makes me want to cry a little when you live up to the stereotype of a well-off, 70 year old, white, British, ivory tower academic. But let me spell it out for you instead of just getting mad (though I’ll do that too):

Words matter. You don’t get that because you’ve never been called a cunt, a faggot, a nigger, a kike. You don’t have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don’t have people saying you shouldn’t have rights. You don’t have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don’t live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.

I’m guessing that Richard Dawkins (if this was truly him) has never lived in an environment where larger, stronger men are constantly offering him chewing gum, and getting aggressive and even violent if he declines. The uncomfortable reality is that we live in a society where sexual harassment and sexual violence against women is accepted and condoned to a far greater extent than any remotely comparable violence against men. Men who fail to grasp this and act as if women are being unreasonable to fear it are just flaunting their own ignorance.

Let’s be clear. Sexual assaults and other bad things happen on elevators. Dawkins is wrong, and his assertion is not one of fact, but rather, of backpedaling. He can’t possibly think that a) a woman can just decide to walk away from a sexual assault or b) that if a woman is in fact made to feel uncomfortable in a given situation that she should keep quiet about it, and if she does not, that she should be told to shut up about it.

Most of the voices telling Rebecca Watson to quiet down and get a grip on herself are coming from, I think, men who just don’t want there to be a rule that says that they must modulate their behavior in connection to the idea that a very large number of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime, and that the vast majority of sexual assault comes from men, and that the world is full of Demonic Males.

If Dawkins — a leader in the critical thinking movement and a man known for defending women against religious oppression — can take such a dismissive stance, it’s clear that we have a long way to go. I don’t know if it was sexism on Dawkins’ part or just plain obtuseness, but this attitude is shared by far too many men. It trivializes the justifiable fear women have to live with as well as their point of view, and that’s just plain wrong.

Personally, I think that convincing an audience of atheists that the religious right sucks is probably much less of a challenge than convincing them to look at themselves and find imperfections, and I applaud Rebecca for being willing to take the hard road.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that people in the movement are fighting back against this tedious and predictable sexism, and they’re fighting hard. PZ Myers, as usual, is on the side of the angels. So is Jennifer McCreight. Sadly, Richard Dawkins was a dick about all this.

Dawkins is what one might consider a ‘big fish’ in the atheist-skeptic community, and fits the profile of who feminists consider to be their worst enemy, according to their ideology – the old, white, wealthy, heterosexual male – the very embodiment of the “Patriarchy” that has, they argue, kept women oppressed since time immemorial. Feminists across the blogosphere (and there are many men within their ranks) used this coincidence as a rallying point, and the war began.

Rebecca Wasson, feeling emboldened from the show of support from the Big Bloggers, added her voice to the chorus of criticism against Dawkins, in The Privilege Delusion (July 5th):

Well, PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, Phil Plait, Amanda Marcotte, Greg Laden, Melissa McEwan and others have all already said it, but I figured I should post this for the record: yes, Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

[…] So many of you voiced what I had already been thinking: that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.

Despite the fact that I’ve seen hundreds of comments from those of you who plan to do the same, I’m sure Dawkins will continue to be stinking rich until the end of his days. But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.

She shocked many by openly declaring, through the above remarks, a personal boycott of Dawkins and his associated works. She also initiated a campaign in which she urged her readers to writer letters to Dawkins expressing their disappointment. Excepts of some of the letters appeared on the Skepchick website, with some beginning with “Dear Dick…”.

(Throughout this ordeal, many of Dawkins’ critics have used the epithet “dick” to deride him – using it as a convenient slur that happened to coincide with the shortened form of the name Richard. The word “dick” is vulgar slang for penis – and is also used to describe a man who is regarded as obnoxious or stupid. Many of these critics using this epithet have been feminists, which is significant, given their negative reaction when the sexual epithet “twat”, and its associated pormanteau, Twatson, would be used to deride Rebecca Watson. The word “twat” is vulgar slang for vagina – and is also used to describe a a foolish or despicable person.)

The Skepchick “Campaign” […] makes me ill. It’s baseless scapegoating. It’s vindictive and self-serving. It’s bullying. It’s viciousness and nastiness of the highest degree, and it’s a perfect example of groupthink at its worst. They’re acting in the most irrational, childish, and un-skeptical way possible.

And let’s call a spade a spade: it’s nothing less than an attempt at character assassination.

I just can’t grasp how anyone who possesses even an ounce of intellect or empathy or skepticism could support what they’re doing. It’s truly vile.

Atheists told how to behave towards women

The Big Bloggers soon came to realise that a sizable portion of their readers were not in agreement with them. They concluded that such people simply did not “get it.” Taking the view that this showed there was a very serious etiquette problem in the atheist-skeptic community, some Big Bloggers felt that their influence could be put to use in teaching atheist men the ‘basics’ of dealing with women.

What about tactics? I know all the games entitled young men, in particular, play. If you are deploying wingmen, if you are approaching this as you would a gazelle hunt, where the goal is to isolate a target from the herd and make them vulnerable so they will succumb to you, where getting the target stupefyingly drunk is a desirable means to an end, then you might get laid — I don’t deny that those tactics works for unscrupulous people — but you will have forfeited the title of Decent Human Being, and we’d rather you didn’t come to our meetings. Also, atheist women tend to be assertive and not at all bashful about telling everyone else about your behavior, and you’ll find yourself discussed on youtube and on blogs and perhaps even from the podium at the meeting. Then you’ll feel compelled to comment anonymously on those blogs, complaining about ball-busting man-haters, and you’ll be forever receding from that desirable status as Decent Human Being.

Chances are that Elevator Guy was just a socially ignorant slightly drunk dweeb of no consequence.

Or not. And it is the "or not" part that a woman MUST pay attention to in order to live her life as long as she can before her first sexual assault, or to increase the amount of time spent between her last sexual assault and her next one, or to make the next sexual assault hopefully non-fatal or something that she can get out of quickly or minimize in some way. Because very few women get away without something happening in their lifetime.

[…] So I learned this trick. Cross the street about a block back and "pass" the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, my practice in those days was to cross the street to not stress her out.

[…] All men. ALL men who have given sufficient consideration to women’s position in our society do this walking trick. If you are a man and you do not know about this trick then there is a problem with you.

Here’s the thing. A woman normally possesses a certain sense of caution, which does cause stress. A man should respect that and act accordingly, by doing certain things and not doing certain things.

To the men who have been resisting and pushing back against the feminists on this issue, there’s a very important thing I want to say to you:

We are trying to help you get laid.

We’re trying to do a lot more than that, of course. We’re trying to make the atheist community more welcoming to women: because that would be better for women, and because it’d be better for atheism. We’re trying to educate men about the reality of women’s experiences, including the reality of how sex commonly gets used to trivialize women, and the reality of sexual violence. We’re trying to make the world a less sexist place.

But we are also trying to help you get laid. (Many of us, anyway.) We are trying to show you the context into which your flirtations and advances and comments about our appearance are falling. We are trying to show you what it’s like to be a woman: what it’s like to try to be flirtatious and sex-positive and still be realistic about the no-joke threats we face every day to our safety and our lives. And we’re doing this, in part, to give you a better shot with us. In fact, one of the very first feminist responses to this latest ruckus, from Jen McCreight at BlagHag, came in the form of a helpful guide: a guide about context, a guide about when/ where your flirtations and advances and comments about our appearance might be well-received… and when/ where they might be perceived as insulting, demeaning, or dangerous.

Notable Blogger Squabbles

On occasion some of the Big Bloggers took swipes at each other over their disagreements on Elevatorgate.

[..]whether it was the intention or not, you’ve convinced a young female in our movement that if she says something you don’t like, she better be ready for an all-out barrage of criticism from every “big name” in the atheist blogosphere. By opting for public humiliation instead of private criticism, who knows how many other potential atheist bloggers and podcasters and writers are now even more hesitant to voice their beliefs out loud. We should be helping them and encouraging them. If needed, we should offer constructive criticism. But tearing them down because they said something they probably shouldn’t have? Whatever happened to a learning curve? I’ve said about 3984239423 embarrassing things on this blog since starting it. If I got publicly reamed every time I did that, I probably would’ve stopped blogging a long time ago.

Could Female 2 have volleyed the criticism right back during Q&A? Why bother. The damage was already done, and the last thing I’d want to do in that situation is draw even more attention to myself. Not to mention bringing it up again would’ve only distracted people from the real issue even more.

… for which he was roasted by Amanda Marcotte. After quoting the above comments of Mehta, she wrote of it (July 5th):

It has it all: 1) Countering criticism that makes you uncomfortable by saying there’s something more important to worry about 2) Shaming a woman for having success 3) Sexist paternalism in the form of arguing that a woman has to be shielded from open discourse lest she be too frightened to return and 4) Implying that said paternalism is feminism. Sarah Palin’s P.R. team would be proud.

I had written before that the way Rebecca publicly berated Stef McGraw at the CFI conference was unprofessional. That led Amanda Marcotte to call me a “sexist paternalist” whose intent was to shame Rebecca for being successful.

2. Watson took the opportunity to attack McGraw from the podium at a CFI conference for student leaders, where Watson was a keyunote speaker McGraw was one of the delegates and had no real opportunity to defend herself. (Watson had previously behaved pretty badly towards Paula Kirby in Dublin, when she went off-topic on a panel to use her time to attack Kirby.)

3. PZ wrote a blog post supporting Watson’s action in abusing her power to humiliate McGraw at the CFI conference.

4. Dawkins made a comment on PZ’s blog in which he (rather sarcastically) suggested a bit of perspective.

A lot of us think that Elevator Guy must have seemed creepy (irrespective of what he really intended or didn’t intend), but we don’t think McGraw did anything so wrong that it justified how Watson treated her, let alone PZ praising Watson for it from his bully pulpit. We may also believe that Dawkins’ initial comment was a bit dismissive of a genuine issue of people not creeping each other out at conferences, but we agree with him that it was OTT for PZ to write a blog post in support of the humiliation of an up-and-coming leader in our movement at a conference put on to nurture such people. And we don’t believe that Dawkins did anything so wrong as to justify the demonisation he’s received or particularly the calls for him to “Shut up,” on the basis that he’s white and male and “doesn’t get it”.

I’m not at all surprised to see which way Chris “Shut Up” Mooney has jumped. Is anybody?

For me, the central issue here is still the treatment of McGraw (who is still owed an apology) … and now more generally the use of power to try to shut people up.

Not too happy with Blackford’s assessment of events, PZ Myers responded further down in the comments of that post:

Jebus, not here, too.

I’ve noticed a consistent bias, well represented by Russell Blackford here (not to pick on him, but it’s just fairly typical).

“1. Stef McGraw criticised Watson in a civil way on a student blog.”

Yes. I disagree with McGraw’s position: Watson was also civil and casual in her criticism of the elevator incident. But I saw nothing wrong in her saying her piece.

“2. Watson took the opportunity to attack McGraw from the podium at a CFI conference for student leaders, where Watson was a keyunote speaker McGraw was one of the delegates and had no real opportunity to defend herself. (Watson had previously behaved pretty badly towards Paula Kirby in Dublin, when she went off-topic on a panel to use her time to attack Kirby.)”

Oops. Here’s the problem. In #1, McGraw criticized Watson in a civil way. In #2, the language changes dramatically: now Watson is “attacking”. She’s denying McGraw an opportunity to defend herself. Russell has not heard this talk. I haven’t either. I doubt that it was a mean-spirited, one-sided attack as it has been so frequently characterized.

I suspect this because I did hear both Paula Kirby’s and Rebecca Watson’s talks in Dublin. Watson did not behave “pretty badly”. She offered a polite, respectful criticism of Kirby’s earlier assertion that sexism wasn’t really a problem for her, pointing out that it is still a problem for many women. Again, there was no attack, no anger. I talked to Kirby at some length afterwards, she didn’t seem mauled at all, and conceded that she’d been given food for thought.

This has been a consistent pattern. The anti-Watson camp relies on gross misrepresentation: I’ve heard so many over-the-top descriptions of her behavior that do not correspond in any way to what actually happened. Even her original comments on the now notorious youtube video were remarkably innocuous — no condemnations of anyone, no declarations that she was persecuted, no long drawn out discussions of what it all means (something I wish these threads were capable of): all she said was a brief description of an awkward moment, with a light and casual suggest that guys not do that anymore. And that’s it.

That’s actually why this issue hasn’t gone away. It’s fundamentally so trivial, so boring, so inconsequential, and Watson’s comment on it was so normal and proportionate, that people are appalled that there are so many recriminations over entirely reasonable behavior by Watson. And we’re kind of peeved that so many people can’t understand why such vociferous condemnation of the most mildly assertive statements from a woman constitute a dismissal of her right to speak.

Myers brought up Blackford again – this time in ERV’s previously discussed Dawkins thread, where he said:

Scroll down a little further on that B&W post, Mr DNA, to comment #105, where I point out the rhetorical game Blackford played in that comment you liked.

Claiming that it is the McGraw/Dawkins lynching that has raised hackles is simply a lie, a barefaced, dishonest revision of history. McGraw was not in any way lynched; Dawkins was raked over the coals, that’s for sure, but only after he made a painfully unaware comment. Most of the sturm and drang occurred over Watson’s youtube video, which you now desperately struggle to ignore in order to pretend her angry reaction was unjustified. I can’t fault people for telling you apologists for sexism, you hysterical serial exaggerators, you dishonest rationalizers to fuck off. You do realize that you can lie calmly and clearly, too, and it doesn’t make it any prettier?

All right, I’ve tried to stay out of this whole train wreck as much as possible. My general view is that no good can come out of saying anything in public. That’s been the case for some time. I’m not at all sure that my very limited participation in the public debate has been helpful, and I’m reluctant to get involved any further.

But I can’t ignore #175. For the record, Paul, I do not play "rhetorical games" and I am not a liar. Over on one (or maybe it was more than one) of Ophelia’s threads, I criticised your actions and views relating to this particular issue. I did so in rather mild and impersonal terms, and I did not attack you personally. I’d imagined until I saw your comments here that we were friends, despite having a disagreement on the merits of this particular issue – not *close* friends, granted, since we’ve only met at a couple of conferences, but still friends.

I believe that what I wrote on Ophelia’s site was true. Even if I was mistaken, that does not make me a liar – we all make genuine mistakes. At my end, I think that you’re making some serious errors of judgment in this whole debacle, but I haven’t accused you of being a liar. You’re doubtless calling it as you see it. Well, so am I.

You do "get" that publicly calling someone a liar is a friendship-breaker and a bridge-burner, right? I don’t see how I’ve done anything to deserve that kind of language. Nor do see how I can go on being friends with you after you’ve said that in public.

PZ, you keep saying over and over and over that you ‘disagree’ with Dawkins. Dawkins is ‘wrong’. But you have the exact same opinion as him.

Elevator Guy massively less than Other Shit.

Elevator Guy does not equal rape.

But when *you* say it, its ‘calm and reasoned’, and when *Dawkins* says it, hes ‘painfully unaware’, and when *anyone else* says it they are misogynists and gender traitors, as their gender warrants.

Why?

But yeah, I am prepared to coincede that I wasn;t there and tehrefore I don;y really know shit.Why? We have Stefs account of the events. We have other students accounts of the events (not only the nameless faceless ‘lurkers’ Watson referred to who liek TOATLLY supported her behavior).

I dont have to be in the elevator to know Watson felt creeped out. She said as much.

I dont have to be at the CFI conference to know that Stef was shocked and hurt, and that her conference mates were *PISSED OFF* at Watson. They said as much.

Once again, however, Watson gets to glide on the lube of entitlement and everyone else needs to STFU because they are WRONG.

3. PZ Myers vs. ERV

In a blog post posted on July 18th, blogger Abbie Smith (a.k.a ERV) mocked Rebecca Watson and her feminist defenders that were critical of Richard Dawkins following his comments on Pharyngula, after it was announced that the Richard Dawkins Foundation was going to be sponsoring childcare at future TAM (The Amazing Meeting) events:

Many put up guesses as to why this happened, and I think the ‘why?’ is now clear. Dawkins has shown with his actions time, time, time and again, that he is supportive of everyone in science and skepticism. When it became clear that words, discussion, reasoning were useless against what he was up against, he stopped using words, discussion, and reasoning, and kept doing what he do, which is, to ‘do’:

[…] The non-response this move has gotten, the stunned silence from the True Feminists mirrors that of the duped Evangelicals before. Stricken dumb by being too dumb to understand what just happened. Its hysterical.

[…] Apparently this move has been in the works for a long time, with Camp Quest. Apparently before Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo.

All this petty sniping at Watson is incomprehensible, and beneath you. She is a talented and eloquent activist for skepticism: she has been writing and speaking on this subject for a long time, and has been a catalyst for events and online activism. She’s not a do-nothing or someone who’s only famous for being famous, as some idiots have claimed — she has put a lot of work into this movement. When you demean her, you demean Abbie Smith, who is just a woman with a blog; you demean Richard Dawkins, who is just a guy who wrote some books.

[…] In particular, this — "Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo" — is inexcusable and dishonest. Everyone has seen her "tantrum", since it’s on youtube, and all it was was a woman calmly asking that guys don’t hit on her. No tantrum. No demands. No hysteria. It was actually a reasonable request in a reasonable context. And all the people raging over it are indicting themselves, not Rebecca Watson.

PZ– You have shown exactly *zero* interest in learning my perspective on this issue. You had an opportunity to ask/discuss this with me in a private conversation weeks ago and you didnt care. You dont care. You dont care why I hold the opinion I hold. All you care is that Im ‘wrong’.

*shrug*

But you, like everyone else, are more than welcome to comment here.

Since the thread is closed at your place.

Really is a shame about NatGeo censoring commentors, huh? Oh wait, they arent, nor are they asking us to, and you actually are.

*shrug*

After several heated exchanges with the ERV and others spanning numerous comments, PZ concluded:

I’m done. People aren’t listening, and are still straining to justify the noise of the last few weeks. I’ll leave it to women to speak, and recommend this one comment.

Ophelia Benson of “Butterflies & Wheels” was not happy with ERV for use of the word Twatson, and other obscenities used to describe Rebecca Waston and her defenders. She lamented as follows (July 20th):

Dear oh dear. The slow-motion train wreck lumbers on its way, tumbling down the slope uprooting trees and squashing goats.

[Apparently this move has been in the works for a long time, with Camp Quest. Apparently before Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo.]

If you search for “twatson” on that post there are currently 58 matches, with the number of comments at 519.Including

[How could I think that this was in the works for a while, AND think that this was in response to Twatson and the Bitch Brigade?]

Oy.

Most in the comments section seemed to share Benson’s dismay.

She later ventured into the same thread in which ERV had earlier tussled it out with PZ Myers, and engaged her and her commenters in discussion there. As expected, it did not go well, and soon, Benson found herself the target of many harsh criticisms and insults. Upset at the degree and tone of criticism she received in the comments section of that post and in consequent ones, she announced that ERV’s sympathizers were likely to be blocked from posting comments on her own blog.

Yup! I used the word ‘Twatson’. A very mild political jab in response to ‘Dear Dick’.

She explained her ‘behaviour’:

When I became acutely aware of ‘what was going down’, ie, "Anyone who disagrees with a vocal fraction of the internet? Their emotions are not only dismissible, they are *wrong*. Intimidate dissent into silence." was the SOP, I did what everyone in the internet generation does- escalate the situation for the lulz. Wasnt hard at all because I was personally hurt by PZ Myers horrible behavior.

She went on to articulate the problem she has with those who are supportive of Watson, such as PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson:

Everyone and anyone on Watsons ‘side’ has been exposed as a hypocrite. From the image of Watson ‘branding’ (her phrase) ‘FUCK YOU, PUSSY- REBECCA’ on a mans chest, to PZ ‘mansplaining’ my/McGraws/any females opinion (and of course its not hard to find examples of him being non-PC), to Nanny Ophelia telling another female to "Fuck off" (and then deleting it without saying ‘my emotions got the best of me, i shouldnt have dont that. im sorry’). You know what? I do use ‘naughty words’. And I will continue to do so. I dont ask anyone to condone it. But to dismiss someone saying ‘twat’ in one sentence while comparing women who dont agree with you with sex-addicted non-human primates in the next breath (theyre only trying to get attention of the boys, and eliminate ‘the competition’, you see), I cant help but think those tut-tutting about ‘naughty language’ and how it ‘degrades women’ are crying crocodile tears.

Of course, none of this excuses Watsons decision to abuse her position as an invited speaker to personally attack a member of the audience.

Sometimes smaller bloggers were the target…

5. PZ Myers vs. Franc Hoggle

Once the Big Bloggers escalated the significance of Watson’s elevator experience, it was inevitable that they themselves would soon come under the spot light.

Voices of dissent sprung up all over the internet, harshly criticising PZ Myers. Some of them were scathing enough to warrant his attention and response. The first, from Franc Hoggle of “Grey Lining”, writing in Atheist Flagellants and Puritans (July 9th):

The latest moral panic / fart-in-a-bathtub comes, rather depressingly, via Skepchick’s Rebecca Watson, who you could be excused for expecting to be above such trite gamespersonship. In this case exploiting a perceived atrocity against that most terrifying of socio-theo-politico-morasses: the sacred temple of the divine yoni and all of its sensitivity and delicateness. A blasphemy against the purity of the holy of holies, the supreme goddess-hood, the sublime and perfect eternal feminine, the über-she who’s poop smells like cinnamon buns…

Yeah, perhaps that is stretching the point. But there is no other way to try and get a handle on the way conventional reality simply vaporises and all commonsense ceases to play any role when the deadly combination of pussy, circumstance, insecurity and a readily available male patsy to blame everything on combine in surreal Grand Guignol – especially when the masses rally behind it and give it a good head of indignant steam. This is all grist for the misandrist blog industry, but it is particularly disheartening seeing it become such a staple amongst the godless and allegedly “freethinking” rationalist communities.

Let me remind you what really happened, without the "divine yoni" and "Grand Guignol" and self-righteous accusations of misandry. A woman was awkwardly propositioned. She said no. She later briefly addresses atheists in a youtube video to say, "guys, don’t do that".

So let’s just be clear here. If your version of the events requires comically strident exaggeration in order to make a case, you’re definitely wrong, and you are to blame for the discord and confusion. You are lying. And, by the way, if you even mention the words "misandrist blog industry", you’re a flaming conspiracy nut.

Not impressed with the response from Myers, Hoggle responded by issuing a harsh indictment against him and the atheist-skeptic community in general, for what he considers their failure to adhere to the very standards they profess to hold to, in The Watson Circus – Stick To Science PZ (July 22nd):

Any movement that tries to claim both a moral and intellectual high ground, then fails to objectively and mercilessly apply its own standards to itself is a failure. QED.

I’m already resigned to the big godless social sites being overrun by vanity spammers, ideological monomaniacs and gibberish machines. That’s OK. I can live with that – when you pander to the lowest common denominator you get what you deserve. It’s quite another matter though when you see major, allegedly rationalist, portals skid off down the same path. That starts to hurt and you begin to wonder what happened to the integrity that first attracted you to, what you at first assumed to be, fellow Freethinkers – only to discover most are anything but.

The degeneration of both the atheist and skeptic communities over the last few years has been more than noticeable – repugnant don’t be a dick accommodationist populism; self-loathing, neo-puritan* groupthink; and complete abdication of clear- and freethought principles – culminating in the recent crucifixion of Richard Dawkins by a torches-n-pitchforks mob (for daring to respond to stupidity in a manner that would have made Voltaire proud), and largely with Pharyngula‘s and PZ’s blessing.

[…] The Watson / elevator guy fiasco is hardly the only idiocy responsible – it’s just the cherry on top of the dung heap. Anyone who has followed my writings around the place will know this is far from the first thing I have taken issue with, nor is it likely to be the last. Accusations of bandwagon jumping about this are irrelevant.

So to see such double standards, Pollyannaist naivety and exceptionalist considerations extended purely on the basis of gender by sacred cows PZ Myers and Pharyngula is enough to just make you want to hang up your boots and give up.

Integrity is a commodity that is currently being sold by many in the community for the sake of grubby, short-term political reward.

It wasn’t Rebecca Watson who made atheists look misogynistic. It is people like you who rant and rave about your god-given right to hit on women and make them uncomfortable any time you feel like it, and who express such inflated outrage at a woman calmly mentioning that she was made uncomfortable (nothing more) by one guy. You represent the creepy segment of the atheist community; are you proud?

“It is people like you who rant and rave about your god-given right to hit on women and make them uncomfortable any time you feel like it”

Reductio ad Watsonum. I believe I covered this in detail here, in one of the very posts you claim to have read. I’ll reiterate for your sake – it was about demonising the other, by equating them to subhumans that consider the brutalisation and rape of women to be sport. I also pointed out how remarkably similar both the language and the approach you are using is to Stormfront posts about Jews. Evidently, this observation causes you no discomfort and you have no inhibitions about carrying on in that manner in public, because you seem to be in the habit of it.

You represent the creepy segment of the atheist community; are you proud?

If it’s by your definition of “creepy“, damn right I’m proud. I am especially proud of the “creepy”women who are similarly coming forward and challenging this repugnant nonsense for what it is.Unfortunately for you, it’s starting to look like they may not be a minority either. There are many who have even done what you are incapable of doing1 and spotted the Watson / Skepchick hypocrisy, manipulations and double standards long before elevators became a google trend.

PZ, it is time to call you and your bullshit for what it is – BULLSHIT.

Franc Hoggle had more or less declared all out war on PZ Myers by now, and has since proceeded to write several more blog posts dedicated to attacking Myer’s credibility. Myers returned the favour by adding Hoggle’s name to a list of offenders in the Phayryngula “dungeon”, where “the banned offenders are listed for public scorn.”

Other squabbles…

6. Zenbuffy vs. Jennifer Ouellette

Blogger Jennifer Keane (a.k.a. Zenbuffy) of “And another thing…” is one of many women in the atheist-skeptic blogosphere who do not share the views of the feminists and their approach to dealing with Elevatorgate. In Much ado about…wait, what? (July 14th) she wrote:

You can’t simultaneously demand equality, and then also demand different treatment because you are a woman. Equality should mean equality on all fronts, which should mean that men and women are free to express their desires, and men and women are free to say yes or no. And as long as no crime occurs (i.e. sexual assault after a clear refusal), then that really should be the end of it.

[…] I am lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where, for the most part, being a woman isn’t a big deal. I won’t look for sexist issues where they don’t exist, and I won’t add gravitas to otherwise unimportant happenings by tacking the word “feminism” onto them; especially when so many women do not enjoy the many freedoms that I take for granted. I’m not a feminist. I’m just a programmer, a martial artist, a blogger, a scientist, and a skeptic. I also happen to be female.

Science writer and blogger Jennifer Ouellette wrote a commentary in the “Scientific American” blog on sexism in the atheist-skeptic community in light of Elevatorgate, Is It Cold in Here?(July 20th):

Here is the message being sent to the women skeptics and atheists say they want to join their ranks: “If an atheist/skeptic man behaves boorishly toward you, or refuses to respect your boundaries, whether social or sexual, and you have the gall to state firmly that this is not okay, you will be publicly pilloried, ridiculed for being hysterical, called a man-hating feminazi (or worse), and have your concerns belittled and dismissed.”

Why should I, or any woman, want to be part of that community?

Further on in her article she writes a “manifesto for change” in which she challenges those in the skeptic/atheist community to implement a number of principles – one of which was the following:

(2) There are also women out there who do not believe this is an issue because they haven’t personally experienced it, or have experienced things they feel are far worse. Please do not diminish the experiences and emotions of your sisters in skepticism. Remain open to the possibility that you, too, might be unconsciously influenced by cultural baggage.

In her initial posting of this article, Ouellette referenced (by embedding a link to it) Jennifer Keane’s article as an example of women “diminishing the experiences and emotions” of their “sisters in skepticism” (an allegation that would be satirised by the cartoonists of Jesus and Mo).

Keane was not pleased at how here position was represented on Ouellette’s article. She wrote, in Integrity starts at home (July 22nd):

My blog was linked to by Jennifer Ouellette in a blog which was published on the Scientific American website. Understandably, I was curious as to what had brought my blog (relatively small as it is) to the attention of someone posting on SA, so I headed on over to see. Unfortunately, I wasn’t that thrilled with what I found. The blog was about the recent “elevatorgate” furore, and about sexism in science in general, and it seemed that my blog had been referenced in, what I believed to be, a rather unfavourable light.

According to Keane, her attempts to engage Ouellette on the matter did not go well:

After the link was brought to my attention, I posted about it on twitter, wondering whether Ouellette had actually read my blog (since she seemed, in my estimation, to be misrepresenting what I had said, and indeed, who I am). You can also see her (slightly confusing) reply in the tweet linked above. I attempted to continue the conversation, by explaining that I wasn’t offended, but didn’t agree with how she had referenced me (those tweets read from last to first, to get the sentences in correct order). I had hoped to engage in further discussion with her on the point, but that hope was quickly quashed by, arguably, one of the more dismissive responses I’ve received in recent times – “Interesting that in a 3000 word post with 25+ links, you’re making it all about you.” My final reply (again, read from bottom to top) attempted to call her on this behaviour, but she obviously considered the matter closed, as I’ve received no further reply.

At some point during their back on forth on Twitter, it seems Oubliette removed the link referencing Keane’s original article – a deed that Keane considered ‘pathetic’:

Some time after my twitter comments, the link to my blog was quietly removed without comment. I received no message to tell me it was done, and no comment appears on the article to indicate that it was further edited after being published. If it wasn’t for the fact that I have web data records to prove the visits coming from the blog, the link might never have existed. And, frankly, that’s more than a little pathetic.

[…] I don’t change my posts after I’ve written them to better suit my mood, or to avoid something that I don’t want to deal with. I stand by what I write, even if others don’t like it. If a small-time blogger like me can manage, surely someone like Jennifer Ouellette can at least try?

The Blog Wars were broad in scope and battles were fought across hundreds of blogs, comments sections, and forums across the Internet. It is therefore quite difficult to capture every skirmish that erupted over this fiasco, between bloggers.

Hundreds of videos expressing different opinions on Elevatorgate appeared on Youtube, following the outbreak of commotion in the atheist blogosphere.

Below is a the popular comedy skit, Mr. Deity, satirizing what they view as the witch-hunting climate that the controversy generated (posted July 11th):

Below is the most widely viewed video on the matter (135,125 views as of this writing), by a Youtuber by the name of TheAmazingAtheist (posted on July 12th):

Elsewhere on the Internet

“Atheist Cartoons” satirized Richard Dawkins’s dismissive attitude towards Rebecca Watson’s elevator experience by depicting him being alone in a an elevator at 4.00am with Ray Comfort, a Christians apologist widely mocked in the atheist community for his rather bizarre view that bananas constitute a nightmare for atheists (July 5th):

“Jesus and Mo” made sure they had something to say on the matter – particularly in response to claims that there is such a thing as a patriarchy, and how women who disagree with Watson are not “true” feminists (July 27th):

Rebecca Watson’s credibility also became a subject of commentary. Some bloggers attempted to dig up details of alleged gross misconduct on the part of Watson while she held moderator privileges at the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) forums. She was many times accused of hypocrisy for engaging in sexual objectification of herself, and others, while actively castigating others for allegedly doing so:

There is considerable controversy in the blogosphere about Richard Dawkins and his apparent views on women. Dawkins, whose strident atheism undoubtedly puts off more people than it attracts, has long been a figure who has divided atheists and skeptics (the latter a general label for many who self-consciously promote critical thinking and an evidence-based approach).

Dawkins seems to be losing, based on the many who’ve disagreed with him in the Science Blogs comments section and their own blogs. Watson, though having become disillusioned by someone she once admired, should feel vindicated by the amount of support she’s received.

Surely not all of the men who reacted angrily to Watson’s video are woman-hating sociopaths. It’s probably the case that many were indirectly responding to past personal rejections that made them feel confused and wounded. I’ve known kind, decent men who express supreme frustration over how unclear women can be. Resentment builds up and some become hypersensitive to any female complaint about being hit on. It’s true that women can be confusing, and that is especially true when it comes to hitting on them, because we have been socialized against saying "no." Instead, we say things like, I’d love to, but I’m busy or I can’t or I have a boyfriend (even if we aren’t, we can, and we really don’t). I try to fight my natural inclination to wrap up rejection in such a way that one might mistake it for a valentine — but I also expect men to put in some effort to try to pick up on subtle, humane hints (or to simply give a shit about what I want rather than doggedly pursuing their end goal).

The Skepchick has called for the head of Richard Dawkins. She dropped the big one, informing him that he is the most loathsome of creatures: the privileged old white man. Being something of a skeptic myself, I find it hard not to notice that young Anglosphere women are easily the most privileged people in the known universe. They’re so privileged that even pie-faced, cabbage-brained ones such Rebecca Watson may be able to ruin a world-famous author’s reputation.

The point is that because the issue is sexism in the atheist movement, perceptions of sexism are not based on absolute principle, but on relative emotion.

Watson speaks out against the sexual objectification of women, but she apparently sees nothing wrong with the pinup calendars that she and her female atheist friends publish. Myers defended her views on his blog, but only last year he linked to an interesting interview with Nina Hartley, a feminist atheist who sees nothing wrong with women performing as sex workers.

You see, sexism and the exploitation of women are not immoral to godless women as long as such things are on their terms. Is it any surprise, then, that some unprincipled men with their own terms try to take advantage of this – or that some godless men insensitively accuse alert women of “whining”?

I usually have a great deal of respect for Dawkins’s ideas but I strongly disagree with his stance on this issue. Being drunkenly flirted with by an intoxicated man in a lift at 4am can make someone feel intimidated even if no physical contact is made. I’ve had similar experiences while waiting at bus stops after dark. The freedom to escape is there, as Dawkins points out, but the verbal exchange alone can still make some of us feel unsettled and shaken – not to mention the fact that many of us have experienced being followed home. This effect is amplified within a confined space with no other people present.

As Dawkins has conceded in a later reply, highlighting a problem on a larger scale, as he did when comparing Watson’s complaint to the hardships encountered by women in some developing countries, does not erase the damage caused by a smaller problem. His dismissal of Watson’s concerns further contributes to the problem of alienation felt by some women within the Skeptic community – something we should be collectively working to combat rather than develop.

[…] the people arguing that we have no obligation to accommodate the discomfort of women in situations like Watson’s might consider whether they’re akin to the driver telling himself that he wouldn’t ever need help, so therefore he feels no obligation to help other people who stuck. In other words, if you’ve never encountered situations which make you skittish about being propositioned in an elevator—or if you have, but prefer to deal with your discomfort yourself—you should make sure that you’re not retrofitting your ethical maxim (i.e., “People have no obligation to concern themselves with the comfort of women in those situations”) to your own situation.

If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from all of this it is that feminists have as much hope of converting misogynists to their cause with public rebuke and shaming, as militant atheists do in converting believers to reason by offending the religious. Finally, the onslaught of misogynist bile spewed at Watson after "Elevatorgate" did nothing to dispel the notion that sexism was absent among male atheists. Instead it bolstered her cause and showed the world that she’s part of a reason-based movement that’s riddled with chauvinism.

In a video blog, the popular skeptic blogger recalled a man following her into an empty elevator and inviting her up to his room after she spoke about feminism at a European atheist conference last June.

"Guys," she said with a bit of a laugh, "don’t do that."

Hers and other atheist/skeptic blogs were soon flooded with comments. Many women told of receiving unwanted sexual advances at freethinker gatherings. Some men, meanwhile, ridiculed Watson as overly sensitive or worse — or threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder.

The Aftermath

Rebecca Watson eventually released a follow up video to the first one in which she first discussed the elevator incident. In the new video (posted on July 22nd) she commented on the feedback received, and criticised people who felt that there was nothing wrong with the actions of the man in the elevator. She described as ‘normal’ those who accepted her point of view on the matter, and sarcastically advised those who disagreed with her to opt for alternative ways of “getting their rocks off” such as using inflatable dolls, flesh-lights, or watermelons:

Below is a response to the above video by Youtuber, Friendough, who feels that Watson’s dismissive attitude towards her critics, many of whom have offered what he feels are legitimate criticisms, was not helpful in fostering a climate of dialogue and understanding. It was posted on July 29th:

Conclusion:

As of this writing, the matter is far from settled, although tempers have cooled. August ended fairly quietly – even so, up to now there is still no consensus on how best to interpret the events surrounding, and following, Elevatorgate. The real challenge seems to be the fact that Elevatorgate is not a debate over a single issue. It is a meta-issue, encompassing a wide spectrum of important questions:

Does the behaviour of the man in the elevator constitute sexism or objectification?

Should men proposition women in elevators?

Did Rebecca Watson abuse her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI conference in calling out Stef McGraw?

Are women who disagree with Watson’s assessment of the elevator situation gender traitors?

Is Feminism an integral part of Atheism and Skepticism?

Is Rebecca Watson using this to simply draw attention to herself?

Is ‘rape culture’ really pervasive in America?

Is it because of sexism that woman are not participating in atheist-skeptic events?

Was Dawkins right, and is this is an overblown affair?

Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?

Is group-think pervading the atheist-skeptical movement?

Atheism has dos and don’ts? Who decided that, and how?

Is it sexist to be skeptical of feminism?

Do women live in perpetual fear of rape, and must men modify their behaviour to accommodate this fear?

Are men privileged?

Are women privileged?

Is it wrong to call each other “dicks” or “twats”?

Etc.

In any given blog or forum in which Elevatorgate is being discussed, different comments will go off into several different tangents exploring any one of the above, or even more, issues. As such, it is difficult for there to be any systematic evaluation of all the pertinent issues without diversions occurring – resulting in a general feeling of frustration and exasperation as matters are left unresolved.

The Out Campaign

116 comments

1. Not sexism, and not objectification by any meaningful definition of objectification.
2. There is a place for anything anywhere but as a general rule its probably best if you do not go for the elevator proposition, unless you have airtight game, which the guy evidently did not.
3. Accusing someone of parroting misogynistic thought in front of an audience is petty.
4. What does this even mean? Anyone who in seriousness accuse someone of being a “gender traitor” is off their rocker.
5. No. Atheism and skepticism overlap in some areas but the attempt by the attempts by skeptical feminists to subsume atheism into feminism will be a disaster if successful. Its strange that feminism tends to act as a parasite of other movements; may I point to the Drupal open source community where in the interests of getting more women involved leadership was ceded to the feminists who have turned the community into a feminists bootcamp and instead of people talking about drupal at meet ups they have to listen to the feminists squabble over their different petty theories of sexual objectification,
6. Yes. Rebecca Watson is a celebrity of the atheist movement. I have read of a few of her pieces that surprised me with how good they were but for the most part she leverages her sex and fan base for attention.
7. If it is, than ‘violence culture’, theft culture’, ‘speeding culture’ and ‘identity theft culture’ are all things too. Using the feminist definition I suppose the USA qualifies, however I doubt such a distinction is useful for anything other than feminist propaganda.
8. No. The portion of women that attended events closely mirrors the percent of women that are actually atheist. It its probable that somewhere there is an atheist group that has a lower percentage of women because of its environment, but in all the major groups any environmental affect is probably outweighed by things such as skepchick’s fundraising to send women to the conferences for free.
9. Dawkins was right in mocking how upset everyone in the parangula thread was getting over the elevator proposition when the same people generally act apathetic towards issues such as FGM, which Dawkins has in the past wrote very passionately about.
10. Anyone who thinks that Dawkins is a misogynist is insane –this is generally agreed, you say even the most ardent of the big name feminists trying to distance themselves from the “misogynist” labeling.
11. Group think pervades every movement. The real problem was the big name atheist men who tried to pump their feminist credentials; most female feminists try to be coherent, most male feminists don’t even bother because usually their purpose is only to pander. It is funny to notice that PZ Myers who really is responsibly for how dramatic the whole thing came by encouraging Watson and making up all kinds of nonsense just because he thought the feminists would like it has since fallen out of favor with them (http://greylining.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/pz-myers-attacked/).
12. Dunno.
13. No, although it might get you accused of that. In fact its very justified.
14. The only time I hear claims as radical as the ones thrown around during elevatorgate are when feminists attempt to justify themselves getting more influence, so I am skeptical.
15. Privileged, expect as a buzzword to use in propaganda, is not a useful construct.
16. Ditto.
17. If were trying to be serious, yes. The name calling reflects the worst on Watson and her ilk who were trying to at the same time be paragons of political correctness.

Fantastic summary. I had read about this episode a couple of months back. Never knew it had snowballed into this big a controversy, with it’s own “gate” suffix!
I agree with your assessment that this has become a meta-issue and encompasses a lot more than a chance approach in an elevator.

A remarkably thorough summary. I think you are right in saying that it’s spawned into something of a meta-debate, and that it is no longer about one issue. People may have had their differing opinions about the elevator incident, but what has really caused a blow-up is the behaviour of people after that fact.

Instead of some sort of reasoned discussion, everyone just got their claws out and dug in – no debate, just personal insults being flung about by both sides. And that’s a genuine shame, because when issues like this arise, I think they need a proper debate. Now, I think the reason that the blogs on this subject have quietened down is because people are too afraid to blog about it in a very saturated blogosphere. Anyone who wants to blog supporting Rebecca’s assertions, well, there’s already a metric ton of blogs doing that. Want to blog against them, there’s a fair few of those too. You’ll likely receive abuse, no matter what side you take, and even if you don’t actually take a side.

As per my linked blog, and several comments I’ve posted elsewhere on the subject, I don’t really agree that what happened was a sexist/feminist issue. I think it was a slightly uncomfortable situation that we all experience at one time or another – being approached by someone we are not interested in. I have noted elsewhere that I think the situation would not have even sparked a single blog if it were a man who was approached by a woman (because had he blogged about feeling uncomfortable, he probably would have been mocked for not conforming to gender stereotypes, and she would have been lauded for challenging societal norms), and I believe that this would have been a non-issue if the attraction had been mutual.

Broadly speaking, I think Dawkins was right, though I believe his comment was a faux-pas. It was a highly charged debate, and people were too riled up and offended to see the irony in the comment, and so the overall message was lost. I don’t think that it’s somehow wrong to be skeptical of things done in the name of feminism if you believe they’re not really feminist issues – too many people tag debates with emotive or controversial vocabulary when it’s not really relevant. I don’t think that you have to be some sort of super-feminist to be a skeptic and/or an atheist, and I believe that being a proponent for equality is more important than being a “feminist” because, ultimately, that is what it is supposed to be about – not special rights for women, but rights for men and women that are equal. Not just women receiving equal pay, but men receiving a fair share of paternity leave, for example.

I think there’s been an awful lot of loud shouting, and not very much listening by anyone. I think that some people have abused their position as prominent skeptics/bloggers to trample or abuse smaller bloggers or dissenters. I think it has probably discouraged a lot of people from blogging or commenting on the issue for fear of, frankly, getting hassled by the very same people who are supposed to be against all this sort of hassling nonsense. I think that this whole debate has moved far away from the elevator, and spawned into a discussion of bad behaviour, and whether people have the right to expect better from those who put themselves in the spotlight. Personally, as you see from my own listed squabble, I believe that we do.

I agree with everything you just said, Zenbuffy. I think most people do, but there aren’t enough of us willing to “fight the powers that be.” I don’t want to be part of any movement with nuts like Amanda Maracotte and attention-seeking manipulators like Rebecca Watson at the helm. If those are those are the representatives of our gender to aspire to, then I surrender my gender membership card here and now. Where are the men hanging out? I’d like to go there and avoid all these cat fights. Personally, I find getting hit on preferable.

Lots of things happen to people that are undesirable. For instance, I don’t want to be murdered, but I also don’t want people to talk loudly on their phones in the grocery store line.

The issue at hand is what category these actions fall under: ethics, which consist of the undesirable actions that are universally “wrong” and so no one should *ever* do them, or etiquette, which are the class of undesirable actions that are considered rude, inappropriate, etc. but not “wrong”. It’s pretty clear that murder falls under ethics, and talking loudly on your phone in line is a matter of etiquette.

This whole article demonstrates pretty conclusively that hitting on people is a matter of etiquette, not ethics. Being hit on is just one of those things you have to put up with, and if undesirable, you simply decline with the same level of etiquette as was shown you while being propositioned.

If you are trying to gather it all together you might want to list the precedents for this argument (or at least don’t say there were none “unprecedented”).

There was a similar (but in hindsight, smaller) argument which Richard Dawkins also weighed in on briefly (again against the feminist types) involving a speech made at the regional meeting of the Atheist Alliance in Huntsville, Alabama. That was back in February.

Here’s an example link although many of the usual suspects from this time around weighed in on this “issue” of sexism.

Indeed this was not a once off thing, David. In fact, I’ve been worried since the time the the feminist mob slaughtered Luke Muehlhauser of Commonsense Atheism back in 2010 over something similar: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10632.

The good thing is, now modern (gender) feminism is under the spotlight. Let it be exposed and derided for the anti-intellectual sexist dogma that it is.

Incredible work, James. Extreme kudos to you. 100 thumbs up. I will be referring to this URL frequently.

For those interested in *effective* ways to ‘put the kibosh on’ Elevator Gate dust-ups, and any future internet rational/skeptic/free-thought/atheist drama wars, I humbly recommend seeing what I did in this thread, after I noticed Mano Singham (whom I highly respect) nearly take the Watson-centric version of EG at face-value: http://blog.case.edu/singham/2011/09/30/sexism_in_the_atheist_community

The above URL is the culmination of some ideas I’ve been working on for a while. I have been practicing this particular technique in the past couple of months since I first started using it on Ophelia Benson’s blog in regards to EG (where she still edited and deleted some of my comments). I find it very effective, and I hope by providing some useful information, we might be able to drain some of the venom from this wound. Let me know if it is helpful.

I recently learned about this debacle, and it’s seriously disappointing. I even tried posting about it on the skepchick blog, but all my comments on this and related posts were moderated away.

Watson was totally right to advise men not to repeat her experience in the elevator. Sexual assault is a concern for many women, and certain circumstances leave women vulnerable. There is an inherent power imbalance between men and women due to our physical constitutions. I think it’s important for men to realize how some situations can be perceived in our imperfect world.

However, it should also be noted that Watson’s position on this issue is inherently sexist and prejudiced against men. This is evident by a formal analogy:

Ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison
population. Therefore, ethnic minorities are more likely to commit
crimes. Therefore, we should profile based on ethnicity, and stop
and question ethnic minorities more often than Caucasians.

This argument is fallacious, and most people consider racial profiling to be appalling, but it’s regarded as good sense when it applies to men.

In an ideal world, where we all respect each others rights and boundaries, Watson’s scenario would have been no big deal. Each person acted within their rights, which is why Dawkins was dismissive. He clearly thinks that we should all act as we would in a world where people respect each others rights, because that’s the only way we’ll build that world.

But we don’t currently live in an ideal world, and people must often act pragmatically in order to avoid being vulnerable. That’s their right, and if we want to accommodate those who are vulnerable by acknowledging that certain scenarios will inherently make them uncomfortable because of the power imbalances, that would be a very polite of us.

However, we do not have a right to avoid discomfort, so this is purely a *choice* of *etiquette*, and *not* an issue of sexism as it’s been portrayed.

Your set of questions hit the mark I think, and I think Sil addressed them adequately. The Stef McGraw issue was particularly indicative of Watson’s character. Feminists have long been saying how rape exploits a power imbalance, and is designed to make the victim feel helpless, and here Watson exploits her own power imbalance in order to discredit and oppress a dissenter.

On a final note, I’m appalled by the tribal behaviour of the regular commentors on skepchick. Any dissent from the party line is quite viciously attacked. Dissent of any kind, reasonable or otherwise, is simply *not* tolerated, and Watson does absolutely nothing to discourage this behaviour. It’s very disheartening.

This summary was great….. kudos for your work. Im saving it right now on my pc, and ill link it every time i reference the elevatorgate.
As for my personal opinion of the matter, i liked the video of the amazing atheist on it, no matter how rude it was, and which could be summed in 3 lines: why should anyone cares if she had to spend 10 awkward seconds in a elevator, whats wrong on a man hittin on a woman in a polite manner, and i think she wouldnt do all this fuss if this situation was reversed, or if the hitting was made by and on homosexual peoples.
This was really all blown out of proportions, and gives credit to those who thinks that feminists dramatize every little male-female interactions as if it happened with the worst intentions and the deepest misogyny possible involved.

[…] thus blissfully unaware of the controversy, the issue arose pre-TAM last year in the guise of the “elevatorgate” crisis. Elevatorgate came to the fore after B-list celebrity skeptic Rebecca Watson made an […]

[…] thus blissfully unaware of the controversy, the issue arose pre-TAM last year in the guise of the “elevatorgate” crisis. Elevatorgate came to the fore after B-list celebrity skeptic Rebecca Watson made an […]

Wow. I saw “elevatorgate” mentioned on some blog I randomly stumbled upon from a friend’s facebook page and was struggling to make sense of it and why anyone would give such a stupid name to something before I finally found this page.

Now I’m still struggling to make sense of the people involved, but I don’t particularly want to go watch all of the requisite youtube videos, so I think I’m just going to facepalm myself to sleep tonight for having seen anything that could draw parallels between feminists and the christian patriarchy movement. …That and an atheist using things like demonic and angels in some context other than intentionally trolling religious people. That just feels so wrong it turned my stomach.

What gets me the most is the ‘Butterfly Effect’ aspect of this mess. A boozy bloke hits on a girl in an elevator with one of the worst lines ever and next thing you know a major shitstorm is upon the skeptic community. You’ve got to love the interwebs!

[…] atheist men would behave more rationally toward women than religious men). She was the center of ELEVATORGATE where she was “invited for coffee” by a stranger in an elevator. Her comments on being […]

Wow–this represents a lot of work.
People might even get the idea that it’s complete and unbiased.

It ain’t. Left out of your painstaking summary of what the Big Names said and did is the intensive anti-Watson backlash by little names in many many comment threads that started immediately. These anti-feminist and (arguably) misogynistic attacks against Watson and her supporters were irrational, unrelenting (to this day, a year later!), and pretty damn offensive in many cases. The crusaders responsible included many of your bffs from rthe slimepit. A lot of the events you have chronicled occured as direct or indirect responses to this onslaught, and the rest of them were marinated in it.

I’m not sure how the degree of hatred levelled against Watson, feminism, or women in general is relevant to the question of whether the arguments of Watson and her supporters are *right*. The latter is clearly the subject of this article. Spending time on the clearly fallacious arguments that you mention is utterly pointless, and detracts from the time spent on the arguments that carry weight and deserve discussion.

To call such an objective analysis of the philosophical merits of each argument “revisionist and self-serving” is a total misuse of those words.

This is all, of course, par for the course. This is not a discussion, nor does reality have much to do with anything. The Watson camp are not a community, they are a congregation. You are not addressing critics, you are addressing heretics that question the established orthodoxy of the Myers/Watson temple.

Skeptics question nonsense – you are being questioned about vile slander of both atheists and skeptics: you are being questioned about accusations devoid of supporting data. Watson has not provided one iota of evidence for her broad brush smears. None. Not one thing. This is a nice observation from a female community member regarding the current gibberish and hysterics about harassment policies –

Also what needs to be more visible is the 911 phone number, because apparently these morons think the best course of action is to wait two weeks then blog about what almost happened to someone you kind of know.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

All we ever get are continuous tall tales and embellishments months after the fact – long past the time when anything can be proven, or far more importantly, disproven. We are dealing with spook stories being spun for superstitious, terrified villagers by Watson – who has an extremely long record of deceptive and unethical behavior. She is permanently banned from randi.org for very good reasons supported by copious evidence. Evidence that supports scrutiny – precisely the kind of thing Watson should be providing if she is serious about her continuous accusations. But all we get is Mean Girls gossip.

This is all a pitch black smear on our communities – and history will not be kind. Already, Watson’s world is shrinking, the number of people that believe the cries of “wolf!” grow thin. Chas, if you have any kind of evidence or information that has more weight than old wives tales, then kindly provide it. Otherwise, STFU. Hardly anyone believes you clowns any more.

too bad the evidence–Abbie Smith’s marathon Monument threads and the comment threads at Sb Pharyngula–got lost or memory-holed.

But anybody who was actually paying attention at the beginning, when the whole ‘gate thing went down, knows that I am not spinning stories.
I may or may not be a ‘clown’, and I make no claim whatsoever to being unbiased, but I repeat my claim that this post is biased and probably disingenuously so.

It’s ironic that after years of arguing that skeptics and atheists should not refrain from offensive language for fear of driving out religious believers and their sympathizers from a common cause, many of the same people are now complaining that offensive language is driving out women from the movement. Apparently women are to be considered weaker and less rational than religious believers, as a group, since we can’t be expected to see past something that’s “offensive” or “insulting”.

fuck you, windy.
I said nothing about ‘offensive language’. I said ‘offensive attacks’ and that’s what I meant. I am not talking about people taking offense, I’m talking about people meaning it and deliberately giving it (the opposite of ‘defense’). It’s never been about bad werdz; always about intentional cruelty and mean-spirited persecution, and you threw your lot in with assholes a long time ago.
So fuck you.

If you didn’t mean that the attacks involved offensive language, I’m not sure why you added that somewhat tautological specification… but I didn’t make the distinction you seem to imagine here, since one can be quite offensive without any actual “bad werdz”, as I’m sure you would agree.

I am not talking about people taking offense, I’m talking about people meaning it and deliberately giving it

But, intent isn’t magic!

you threw your lot in with assholes a long time ago.

That may be, but I’ve since stopped posting at Pharyngula, so that’s at least one set of assholes less to deal with. (l bailed out after the dishonest smears on your motives, how’s that for irony.)

1. Does the behaviour of the man in the elevator constitute sexism or objectification?

No, obviously. But RW called it unacceptable, not sexist. It’s just an awkward and foolish way to proposition someone, not inherently sexist.

2. Should men proposition women in elevators?

No, obviously. It’s creepy and awkward.

3. Did Rebecca Watson abuse her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI conference in calling out Stef McGraw?

Yes. She erroneously conflated Stef’s criticism with the hate-mail and rape threats. It’s understandable, when one is under such a barrage of toxic backlash, but it was still irrational and mean-spirited.

4. Are women who disagree with Watson’s assessment of the elevator situation gender traitors?

No, obviously.

5. Is Feminism an integral part of Atheism and Skepticism?

Absolutely, yes. Humanism and Atheism go hand in hand, and Humanist ideals and scepticist ideals are logically inseparable. No true sceptic can look at the actual data about gender studies and not conclude that society benefits when equality is pursued.

6. Is Rebecca Watson using this to simply draw attention to herself?

No, obviously. Only horrible people would suggest that someone would SEEK to be cyberstalked, publicly harassed, threatened and so forth, just in the name of demi-fame.

7. Is ‘rape culture’ really pervasive in America?

Yes, obviously.

8. Is it because of sexism that woman are not participating in atheist-skeptic events?

To at least some degree, yes. These gatherings are viewed as sausage-fests, and that self-perpetuates because women don’t feel like it’s a safe space. This will probably change with time.

9. Was Dawkins right, and is this is an overblown affair?

Yes, somewhat. But RW’s original video wasn’t the source of the overblown-ness. Other people escalated this first. RW responded more drastically than was warranted, but given the type of hate mail she was receiving it’s somewhat understandable.

10. Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?

Somewhat. He’s definitely demonstrating privilege-blindness, which is born of misogynism.

11. Is group-think pervading the atheist-skeptical movement?

No, obviously. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be arguments about this. And the people on each side wouldn’t be using actual arguments, they’d just be parroting… which has not been the case.

12. Atheism has dos and don’ts? Who decided that, and how?

Being HUMAN has dos and don’ts. Scepticism does not lead inevitably to moral and social anarchy, despite what theists may tell us.

13. Is it sexist to be skeptical of feminism?

If by “skeptical” you mean “rational”, then no. If you mean “unwilling to believe it exists until you are personally affected by it” then yes.

14. Do women live in perpetual fear of rape, and must men modify their behaviour to accommodate this fear?

This is overstated, but in less overwrought terms, yes and yes. MANY women do live in fear of rape, especially those who have already been victims. Men should modify their behaviour, or at least be willing to acknowledge their privilege. Those who are not willing to do so must accept it when they are deemed assholes and sexists. That’s the price of privilege… a far cheaper one to pay than that paid by the underprivileged.

15. Are men privileged?

Obviously.

16. Are women privileged?

For being women? Obviously not! Though they can be privileged in other ways… race, class, rights, etc.

17. Is it wrong to call each other “dicks” or “twats”?

Not intrinsically, in my opinion. However, it is very much possible to use such language in sexist ways. If you don’t want to be thought of as sexist/misogynist, then you probably shouldn’t belittle a female adversary with gendered insults or appealing to stereotypes. In the same way that, if you don’t want to be thought of as racist, you shouldn’t try to dismiss a debate opponent by disparaging their race or nationality. I would have thought this was common sense.

No, obviously. But RW called it unacceptable, not sexist. It’s just an awkward and foolish way to proposition someone, not inherently sexist.

Quite a few posts, even by RW, claimed objectification. So yes, she did eventually imply it was sexist. But the main problem I have with your post is how the above completely contradicts your later point:

Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?

Somewhat. He’s definitely demonstrating privilege-blindness, which is born of misogynism.

Precisely how is Dawkins demonstrating privilege-blindness if by your own admission the situation under discussion is not sexist, and so no privilege is at play? Dawkins’ flippant response implicitly mocked the obvious fact that no ethical rule was violated in the elevator by contrasting with an obvious ethical violation. Everyone went apeshit over this claiming privilege blindness, as you did, but where’s the justification?

Dawkins later stated that he would apologize if anyone could point out an ethical rule that was violated. I haven’t seen a coherent response to his request for clarification.

RW responded more drastically than was warranted, but given the type of hate mail she was receiving it’s somewhat understandable.

Not sure I can agree with this either. From what I’ve read, RW has received plenty of hate mail and threats in the past. Were these recent ones really so much worse than past samples? That seems unlikely. Of course, perhaps she’s blown up past issues more than was warranted too, I can’t say, as I don’t follow RW.

To at least some degree, yes. These gatherings are viewed as sausage-fests, and that self-perpetuates because women don’t feel like it’s a safe space. This will probably change with time.

Forgive my skepticism, but isn’t the implication that a sausage fest is not a safe space for women itself sexist against men? Particularly since it’s not even based on facts, since the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by people the women know and trust, not complete strangers.

Men should modify their behaviour, or at least be willing to acknowledge their privilege.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with eliminating discrimination, and privilege is part of that. The types of behaviour modification suggested by many in this debacle go far beyond that however, and back into sexist territory. That’s unacceptable.

1. Does the behaviour of the man in the elevator constitute sexism or objectification?

No, It was inconsiderate, certainly, but not sexist.

2. Should men proposition women in elevators?

For the sake of our species we have to form relationships between the sexes, but he chose the wrong time and the wrong place.

3. Did Rebecca Watson abuse her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI conference in calling out Stef McGraw?

Yes. Rebecca made Stef feel uncomfortable. Even if she was unaware Stef was in the audience, when she became aware Rebecca should have apologised. When elevator man’s actions made Rebecca feel uncomfortable, she blamed elevator man; yet when Rebecca made Stef feel uncomfortable, she blamed Stef.

4. Are women who disagree with Watson’s assessment of the elevator situation gender traitors?

No. And such emotive terms are not useful in a reasoned debate.

5. Is Feminism an integral part of Atheism and Skepticism?

It shouldn’t be — by which I mean you shouldn’t need to be an atheist to be a feminist, or visa-versa. One would hope support for equality is a good enough cause in itself, without needing to be dependent on something else.

6. Is Rebecca Watson using this to simply draw attention to herself?

I doubt she is manipulating the situation in some calculated Machiavellian way, but she doesn’t seem to be someone who shies away from the limelight.

7. Is ‘rape culture’ really pervasive in America?

I suspect this is more perception than reality. Certainly the fear of rape, like most violent crime, is worse than crime figures merit — that is not to belittle rape or downplay its impact, merely to note that statistically stranger rape (like being attacked in an elevator by someone you’ve never met before) is very rare. You are far more likely to be raped by the person you usually share your bed with, or someone you know.

8. Is it because of sexism that woman are not participating in atheist-skeptic events?

I suspect the figures are largely down because the economic downturn has hit women (and mothers) harder.

9. Was Dawkins right, and is this is an overblown affair?

Mostly, but he was wrong in the comparison he used. Just because Western woman do not suffer to the extent of women elsewhere, does not mean that should not complain. That’s like telling someone not to complain when you cut their arm off because elsewhere in the world there are people with both arms cut off.

Also, the way he phrased his intervention was (as often is the case) not exactly tactful.

10.Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?

I don’t think he is a misogynist. And throwing around labels like that too liberally means they soon start to lose their impact and meaning.

11. Is group-think pervading the atheist-skeptical movement?

Yes. And all movements of any reasonable size.

12. Atheism has dos and don’ts? Who decided that, and how?

Not atheism dos and don’ts, but human…

13. Is it sexist to be skeptical of feminism?

No, Sexism (like racism and every -ism) is about the answers you give not the questions you ask.

14. Do women live in perpetual fear of rape, and must men modify their behaviour to accommodate this fear?

No, I doubt the majority do. Like the majority of us don’t live in perpetual fear of being mugged in the street. However, sometimes it is just good manners to recognise a circumstance were someone might become temporarily afraid, and avoid it.

15.Are men privileged?

In some ways yes; yet in other ways they are equal. It would be silly to deny the great strides that have been made in equality in some parts of life over recent decades. Yet it would be just as silly to think these strides apply to every area of life.

16. Are women privileged?

In some ways yes. In the case of divorce, for example, women are far more likely to be awarded custody of the children, even if the father is a more willing and suitable parent. Even if the man is awarded custody, when it comes to maintenance payments women are typically instructed to pay much less of a percentage of their salary (even if they earn a substantial wage) and are less likely to be pursued by authorities if they fail to pay.

“For the sake of our species we have to form relationships between the sexes, ”

I like to think of it as, “For the sake of human happiness.” Most people don’t want to be alone. Companionship makes them happy. All this talk of privilege and patriarchy kind of makes me wonder. If men are by default privileged, and woman are not, that puts men in power over women. Therefore, all sexual relationships under that paradigm are assault.

I don’t honestly believe that, but if one believes in the privilege paradigm, one might be able to make a case for any perceived slight to a woman by a man is evidence of (and due to), privilege and patriarchy and misogyn et al.

Or maybe a boy was spellbound by an eloquent young woman and in a fit of bravery and inebriation, sought her attention for just a little longer. I know I’m romanticizing what likely was awkward and strange, but I’m sure if Rebecca had felt the same way about the boy, there’d be no youtube video.

I am tunneling down the threads at various fora on this, this is the first I have come to the end of. No where so far do I find that anyone has actually listened to and Ms Watson’s video. She states Elevator Guy opened his invitation with ” Don’t take this the wrong way….”, I can only interpret this as meaning ” This is not a pick-up line…” and Ms Watson and her camp are completely stupid.What that says about other commentators I will leave up to them.

[…] because of the utter disruption they have caused among the atheist community. The feminist war over Elevatorgate has permanently damaged Dawkins and the atheist community’s reputation, and damaged it far […]

[…] purposefully detached from online communities and blog wars, I only just learned about the “Elevatorgate” which happened last summer. To make a very, very long story somewhat shorter: A prominent […]

“1. Does the behaviour of the man in the elevator constitute sexism or objectification?”

He was asking her to join him for a cup of coffee!

“2. Should men proposition women in elevators?”

For a bleeming cup of coffee?

“3. Did Rebecca Watson abuse her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI conference in calling out Stef McGraw?”

Was the purpose of the conference a discussion on offering women in elevators a cup of coffee? Otherwise yes she did.

“4. Are women who disagree with Watson’s assessment of the elevator situation gender traitors?”

Not unless they see Watson as a representation of the female gender, no.

“5. Is Feminism an integral part of Atheism and Skepticism?”

Feminism cant be a part of anything, Feminism can only control things. If feminism is not in control it will try to change the situation.

“6. Is Rebecca Watson using this to simply draw attention to herself?”

No, she is using this cause of control-fantasies common in feminism. They always wanna police behavior and boss men around invent rules for how to talk and how to act.

“7. Is ‘rape culture’ really pervasive in America?”

Do people normally applaud rapists? If not, no!

“8. Is it because of sexism that woman are not participating in atheist-skeptic events?”

Is it because of sexism men are not participating at Lady Ga-Ga concerts more? Its a matter of where you have priorities.

“9. Was Dawkins right, and is this is an overblown affair?”

Yes he was right, this is garbage and making fun of it was the only response it deserved.

“10. Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?”

Yes and No, He made fun of Watson cause she was stupid, Not cause of her gender.

“11. Is group-think pervading the atheist-skeptical movement?”

Some do, some dont

“12. Atheism has dos and don’ts? Who decided that, and how?”

Atheists themselves by which people they listened to and whose books they bought most of creating larger market value.

“13 Is it sexist to be skeptical of feminism?”

Is Feminism and Women one of the same thing? No they arent.

“14. Do women live in perpetual fear of rape, and must men modify their behaviour to accommodate this fear?”

Should Atheists accomodate Religious peoples fear of god? No cause that would just teach Religious people to declare themselves afraid whenever they want something. Men accomodating womens fears will just make women more and more afraid and the fear itself is misandy from the start cause there are no rational reason to be afraid of men in general.

“15 Are men privileged?”

No, as a man you die earlier and are more often victim of violence while the majority of resources is spend making women feel safe. Only a few men are priviliged.

“16 Are women privileged?”

Yes, see last answer.

“17 Is it wrong to call each other “dicks” or “twats”?”

It is impolite so it depends on whether the situation calls for a polite response or not.

[…] grupper för att gynna de marginaliserade. I fallet Ateiströrelsen yttrade sig detta i och med “Elevatorgate”. “She entered the elevator and was joined by a man. While in the elevator, the man expressed […]

I second that emotion. Honestly, when will folk listen to or read evething that is said, and if they don’t understand it or understand it in a negative way, seek clarification from the speaker/author as to what they actually intended to mean before going off on one?

I’m sure that the hotel had a ccd camera in the elevator. Has anybody tried to verify the behavior of the guy or verify that there even was a guy in the elevator? She is﻿ obviously an attention ho, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to ask the hotel if they have a recording of the elevator ccd on the night in question.

Bit late now bro, and even when you posted it was nearly 18months before.
Rebecca Watson is not ‘obviously’ anything except overstoked and overconcentrating on perceived attacks. Which is entirely understandable considering the grief she and others had been exposed to in the months and years beforehand. That said, the guy did say, and this is according to her, “Don’t take this the wrong way”, which I interpret as “This is not a pick up line.”. I will edit myself and say she has been rendered effectively stupid about this by all that has gone before, not that she is stupid in all areas, all the time.

[…] ‘Elevatorgate’ was Becky’s ‘Operation Barbarossa’. Essentially, it was her big push toward establishing victim feminism as an accepted doctrine in the sceptic community. Unfortunately for her, the sceptic community has a comparatively large demographic of, well, sceptics in it – people who are very good at ferreting out the bullshit. In fact, those people have turned ferreting out the bullshit into something of a favourite pastime. Exactly what it was that made Becky think it was a good idea to try and establish the para-religious ideology of victim feminism in the sceptic movement of all movements is a bit of a mystery. Was it naiveté? Stupidity? Masochism? A bit of everything? Be that as it may, the sceptics were unimpressed by the shenanigans, or as Becky would put it, Elevatorgate was greeted by a barrage of sexism and misogyny in the ‘atheist community’. What followed a couple of months later was the Skepchicks’ Stalingrad, otherwise known as TAM 2012. If there ever was any clear indication that victim feminists were having serious trouble co-opting scepticism for their nouveau-religion, it was this. In the weeks and days leading up to the conference, most Freefromthoughtbloggers and Skepchicks bailed out, making all kinds of spurious excuses about ‘gropers and drunk fumblers’ who, were going to populate the conference. One skepchick, SurlyAmy plucked the courage to go to the conference and was effectively meat-space trolled by people who wore parody pendants and clothing that said ‘I’m not a skepchick’. As if to drive home the point that she was neither a sceptic nor any other kind of thinker, victim feminist Amy Davis Roth left the conference in tears, proving to the whole world that her ideology was completely incompatible with scepticism. […]

I didn’t think that violation rhymes with hilarious until reading this. Such a teapot tempest. Of course, when ideas gain currency within the community, the drive to differentiate opinions guarantees that extremist opinions win out over reasoned discourse. Even among self-styled skeptics.

[…] I should point out that my reading on this has been fairly limited, though I get the sense continued research will yield more stories of the same sort. The story I will focus on as an example in this post is the infamous “Elevatorgate”. For those who are not familiar with it, I suggest reading this. […]

The link to Rose’s video has been made private ( I don’t even know who the owner is) and Steph McGraw (who is now Vice President at Uni Free Thinkers) ‘s essay is no longer online. I’m sure someone, somewhere must have cached these things, but I just thought I’d let you know.

What a Hen house!
Look, speaking from a paleolithic male perspective, the only reason we put up with the endless reams of this boring blithering chatter is to get sex. A serious fight between the sexes would end up with men killing 60% of females and keeping the good looking ones for breeding stock. Your nitpicking reams of blather erk us.

Or we can just turn them over to the islamists, acknowledging that Sharia law has a point about annoying female behavior and superficially adopting some of their ways. We can be gentlemen and “Knights in Shining Armor” for the NEXT generation, while this older and “past sell date” generation gets their nubbings rubbed off by slavering Islamists. Hey Guys, check out the Russian Bride Websites!

2) Should men proposition women in elevators?
I’d like to change this question to- “Should anyone proposition someone in a secluded area where they are alone with said person and said person being propositioned has no means of escape incase things go completely fubar?” No.

I guess to put this into light since many men have not experienced being “creeped out”. Imagine if you were alone in the elevator with a larger unknown man who propositioned you. Now, being a man, you make the assumption that if things go sideways you could defend yourself. But what if the size difference was big enough to where you couldn’t? Or, even worse, you suspect the person propositioning you may have a weapon? And, since there are many internet tough guys out there, if imaginging a man so large that you probably couldn’t defend yourself is difficult, imagine being a child and being propositioned by an adult. I imagine regardless of gender, you’d be creeped the fuck out and rightly so.

I think a large issue is that many men do not have much concept of how frightening it can feel to be powerless in a situation where you can be possibly harmed. And even in say, school bully situations, or situations of being mugged or robbed or whatever, yes you may be physically harmed or even killed, but in most situations you’re probably more concerned with them stealing your wallet and not them sexually assaulting or degrading you. If you happen to be a woman, the latter is the most likely outcome. And as horrific of an experience as that is, that’s just the crime itself, not everything that happens afterwards. Speak up about your crime? Be labeled slut, paranoid, attentionwhore, liar, cunt, idiot, etc. by the very people who are supposed to defend you (police and community). And you’d be lucky if the person who acted against you even saw a day in jail.

You might say this is complete paranoia and blowing things out of the water considering the situation, but since men are typically stronger than women, most woman are told from a young age to assume the worst. What’s more, they have to. You know why? Because if god forbid something happened because they didn’t, they’d be lambasted for being an idiot, naive, or told that they actually wanted it to happen. And yet acting in due caution brands you as a crazy and paranoid bitch. And if you happen to voice your discomfort, that makes you an even crazier bitch. To the person who commented about this above, I find it ironic the complaint above about how women dress up their discomfort to not hurt someone else’s feelings and how that can be confusing for men, but yet look at what happens if one outright says what they mean.

Even in situations where the complaint very plainly justified and with video proof, youtube, twitter screencaps, everything, unless the victim handles it like a patron saint, they are considered to have “done it wrong” and their validity of their claim is lessened. Not to mention that speaking up about it in any form is considered “done it wrong”. And, to me, that’s totally illogical. Whatever their behavior doesn’t change what happened to them. What’s worse? Even in situations where they do handle it “properly”, that still doesn’t shield them from a boatload of shitflinging, when they’re the one who was wronged.

At least when a man is a child, they’re not called crazy or paranoid for thinking that talking to a stranger who’s trying to offer you candy in exchange for riding in their van is a bad idea. Do so as a woman? You’re just batshit crazy and paranoid.

So, considering all of the above. Since the “victim” is damned if they do and damned if they don’t, then that leaves the person propsitioning to maybe consider their location and position and maybe even their target’s own comfort level. That’s not a hard thing to do nor is it something unreasonable. Other people from a day to day basis likely treat you reasonably, so it’s not outrageous to ask that you do so in kind to others. And this would be in regards to both men and women. Just show some goddamn common courtesy. It’s really not hard at all.

So I just found out about this thing today and holy, fucking, shit. People have completely lost their minds.

Two plus years of massive flame wars between some giants of the atheist and skeptic communities over a man asking a woman if she wanted to have coffee with him? Did winged marshmallows put me into a coma, fly me to Mars and back, and the whole world was infected with the stupid virus while I was gone??? Seriously people, we face the most complex and dangerous problems in all of human history(how to stop rampant human rights violations, preventing human industry from destroying ecosystems, lowering birthrates to levels which are supportable in the long term, etc.) and here we are, yelling and screaming like toddlers over an incident in which no one was violated in any way? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

I have to agree with Dawkins(no matter how much hate that might earn me, I’m used to being hated so it’s alright, don’t hold back) that this, put into any context larger than the individual one, is a COMPLETE non-issue. According to Rebecca’s own account the man said and did nothing that violated her rights in any way, she just didn’t like it. You know what I do when I don’t like something, I get it out of my life and move the fuck on. It’s a little something I like to call “growing up”, and it seems to be something that Rebecca might want to look into. Now, if he had touched her or prevented her from leaving the elevator it would be a completely different story, but as that simply wasn’t the case(given all the available data).

I also have to agree with James that this event does highlight a rather serious problem for the skeptical community to wrestle with. Just how fragile is this group that an online spat between two individuals over an event that may(or may not) have happened in another country can cause such a crystallization of the skeptics as well as cause a frighteningly large number of them to apparently abandon their skepticism in favor of groupthink? What awaits in the future, which controversial issue will next threaten to tear this loose association of people apart?

[…] Below are some examples of these mainstream atheist pigs with their heads flapping. Just a few seconds of this and you can see why women are not involved – they are not wanted, they are hated. And, this is why Atheism-plus was formed. I should point out that Rebecca Watson, who is the subject of so much white, male wrath below, is both an atheist and a skeptic and these are not the same thing. I have some serious criticism of the skeptic movement, too, which is mainly that they are not nearly skeptical enough and do not do enough of their own research. Nonetheless, what happened to Watson at the hands of these old geezers, other atheist men and some women with Stockholm Syndrome is pretty stunning. All she did was post a vlog asking somewhat humorously for men at events not to jump into elevators with strange women in the middle of the night and proposition them – a reasonable enough request and one you’d think would not need to be stated. This one comment of hers led to a huge, heaping amount of hatred and misogyny being dumped on her and women, in general. If you are unfamiliar with Elevatorgate, you can get up to speed here: https://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/ […]

[…] major conferences and in organizations like JREF and CFI is being fractured by accusations of sexist behaviour from powerful, well-connected men treating atheist women with exactly the same kind of contempt […]

[…] and swiftly rejected the feminists and queer activists wholesale. After the consequences of “Elevatorgate” and Richard Dawkin’s satire of Rebecca Watson these misfits were thoroughly routed and […]

Point of English: shouldn’t the question be, “May men proposition women in elevators?” As originally phrased, the question seems to be asking whether it is incumbent on every man proposition women in elevators.

[…] Given the empirically established anti-theist psychological profile, it is no surprise we had elevatorgate, Shermer’s cease and desist order against PZ, and Happy Atheist PZ Myers and the Creative […]

[…] the men in them) achieving their goals. Atheism is in the midst of a huge gendered battle after elevator-gate; the civil rights movement suffered by excluding or degrading women in the SNNC (of university […]

[…] a few other pieces out there that do a good job of painting the picture of this series of a events. One post in particular is incredibly thorough and seems more or less unbiased, and if you are very interested in this […]

[…] in such a defensive state, of if someone is just over-dramatizing any mundane event. Kinda like Elevatorgate. Someone inviting you over for a cup of coffee at 4am in an elevator, doesn’t really […]

[…] The Happy Atheist PZ Myers’ blog was once the world’s most visited science blog. He then migrated his blog toward other issues like freethought and became involved in some of the most entertaining internet dramas like Elevator Gate. […]

It really sucks to see “feminists”, “atheists”, … whatever you call yourselves use all your knowledge and assets to destroy yourselves rather than achieve your objectif(ves). Or did you come together for self-destruction. All I wish is that this war was filmed. Could have been an epic comedy. No wonder “feminism” means nothing to me. When a raper, assaulter,harrasser, reads such crap, I just wonder. Useless people, shame on all the “big bloggers” who contributed to the nonesense. Find yourselves useful lives than this. I’d rather be indecent than act decently to these childish characters.

[…] Long story short, I discovered the “atheist internet” while there happened to be some stuff going down. I showed up tardy to the party, so I reacted the way I usually do, I kept my mouth shut and I […]

[…] Thunderfoot, The Amazing Atheist, Skepchick and PZ Myers. After the internet shit-storm of Elevatorgate an extended conversation on Feminism has been raging across these and a few other sites. I […]

[…] Wave Feminist have made it to where you can’t ask a girl in an elevator if she want coffee without everyone losing their damn mind…. This is clearly not the same as the first two waves of the movement. This is no longer about […]

Hello There. I found your weblog using msn. That is a really well written article.
I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to learn more of your useful information.
Thank you for the post. I will certainly return.

Being as charitable as I can to Watson, I think her view is still utopian. The people getting mad over this simply don’t like male attraction to women being expressed in anyway. They don’t say this, of course; in fact, they say the opposite, that it’s okay when done correctly. But what IS correct is never explained. I have no way of knowing whether or not I am a sexist until I do a thing and am told later. I have no way of knowing whether I am “appropriately” expressing an interest in a lady until after I’ve tried and been declared a misogynist who objectifies everything with a vagina. There’s no rule book here; “everyone” is supposed to know that this guy’s actions were wrong, but no one ever explains, in general, what was wrong about it, just that the specifics were wrong here. There is no method of asking a girl out that will not make a single woman on the planet feel a little anxious, a little on the spot. It’s not possible. Men should be respectful about it, but there does not exist a universally non-uncomfortable way of doing it. This gentleman was probably trying to lessen her embarrassment by asking her privately and not in front of her friends. The next time, someone might see this and ask a girl out more publically, because it’s “uncomfortable” to be asked out alone, and that girl might feel it’s embarrassing and demeaning because she was made a spectacle.

When you have a viewpoint that cannot be defined, or is contradictory, or is completely arbitrary and shifting, you have an impossible belief, and the only result is confusion, anger, and resentment. There is nothing wrong with there being certain expectations on how to approach and talk to women (or men!) that you are interested in dating, or casual sex, whatever floats your boat. But the expectations have to be clear and understood, and both sides have to follow them (doesn’t mean a women can’t say no, but that she can’t attack the man for doing exactly what men are told is okay). Instead of simply lambasting her critics, Watson should instead explain, in her view, what the proper ways or manners of asking a woman out are. We could then debate that, have some sort of informal code of conduct. But if the rule is “Don’t do whatever ends up making Watson uncomfortable”, how is that reasonable?

[…] and swiftly rejected the feminists and queer activists wholesale. After the consequences of “Elevatorgate” and Richard Dawkin’s satire of Rebecca Watson these misfits were thoroughly routed and […]